Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom Ink

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Ink

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Colleenaoreilly with no other contributions outside this topic K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Wow. I am really on the fence with this once as it is a very popular company. However, the majority of the references (with the exception of this one) are brief mentions, general announcements, or unreliable. Would love to vote keep, but popularity doesn't equate to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets WP:NCORP, with write ups in the Washington Business Journal (here), the Washington Post (here, here, and here), The Wall Street Journal (here), etc. It is quite deplorable that this is the handiwork of yet more kamikaze accounts but their free roaming around here is a matter of general policy. And the text is in need of some serious pruning.-The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, as per a review of sources presented in the last AfD discussion, in this AfD discussion, and in the article itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does look a bit promotional, and could do with a bit of work; however, the Washington Post coverage seems to meet CORPDEPTH, and there are enough sources to meet NCORP, so keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.